It may not be as comprehensive as it once was, but the bill to ban Bisphenol A (BPA) in children’s feeding containers in California, AB 1319, passed the Senate Health Committee today in yet another narrow vote.

In order to secure state Senator Michael Rubio’s vote (the final vote needed for passage), bill author and Assemblymember Betsy Butler agreed to accept amendments that included eliminating language in the bill that would have banned the chemical from baby food and infant formula. The ban would still apply to baby bottles and sippy cups, making it similar to more limited bans that have passed elsewhere including in Canada.

The fact that the bill passed through this committee at all is a testament both to Butler’s dedication, and to the work of environmental and children’s health groups to spread the word to their members. Nearly 2,000 CLCV members and others have signed our petition in support of the bill, which was delivered to Senator Rubio’s staff. (Click here to view the petition: http://salsa.wiredforchange.co…

It shouldn’t have been a close vote. Watching several Senators (including Committee Vice-Chair Tony Strickland) protest that because they aren’t scientists, they’re not fit to make a decision about BPA (oh and by the way, they’re parents of small children, so it’s not that they don’t care about kids!), made me feel physically ill. And not just because they make decisions about other issues all the time without having earned a PhD in the subject. It’s called being an elected official.

As a (very) pregnant woman who’s recently done my share of shopping for baby items, I know there are plenty of retailers (online and otherwise) that have BPA-free products available. They include major retailers like Target and Wal-Mart. But many (especially those with actual storefronts) continue to sell products loaded with the chemical. I happen to have both the awareness about BPA and the ability to shop for products that make “BPA-free!” part of their prominent sales pitch. So does each and every member of the Senate Health Committee, whether or not they admit it.

(Seriously, does anyone think any given member of the state legislature would knowingly give their child a bottle that contained BPA?)

But not every mom or dad in California has the information or the access to buy BPA-free. Many families must shop at the local dollar store for feeding containers like bottles and sippy cups. It’s their children who will bear the burden of BPA exposure if the bill does not succeed.

State Senator Kevin DeLeon remarked on this fact in his comments to the committee today, saying: “Every child deserves to grow up in a healthy environment; it’s an equity issue. We have to do everything we can to protect young babies.” He reiterated his support for the bill (with or without the amendments) and thanked author Butler for her courage in championing the issue.

AB 1319 now moves to the Senate Environmental Quality committee before heading to the full California state Senate floor for a vote, and then to Governor Brown’s desk.

The battle is far from over. Chemical companies want to see this bill go down. While they may have lost some of the players involved in the opposition (for example, infant formula manufacturers may no long put as much self-interested energy into opposing it), they’ll almost certainly intensify their campaign over the next several weeks to continue to try to mislead Senators about the science on this toxic chemical.

If you haven’t yet done so, please sign the CLCV petition in support of AB 1319: http://salsa.wiredforchange.co…

Meanwhile, the evidence continues to mount that BPA is dangerous. A new study from the University of Missouri says that human exposure to BPA has actually been underestimated, because prior lab tests have looked at single exposures rather than daily diets.

The study is the “first to examine BPA concentrations in any animal after exposure through a steady diet, which mirrors the chronic exposure that humans receive through food packaging.” It further says more than 8 billion pounds of BPA are produced every year, and more than 90 percent of U.S. residents have measurable amounts of BPA in their bodies. Published in Environmental Health Perspectives, the study’s funding came from the National Institute of Environmental Health and Sciences.

You don’t have to be a scientist to look at the mountain of evidence and understand this is a chemical we should be very, very worried about, and to know it doesn’t belong in infant and children’s products. You don’t need a PhD, you don’t even have to be a parent. You just have to use common sense… and it also helps if you’re not accepting donations from the American Chemistry Council.

I’m just sayin’.

Jenesse Miller

Communications Director, CLCV

Statement of Warner Chabot, CEO, CA League of Conservation Voters

The California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV), rejects the latest round of the misleading campaign mail that questions Debra Bowen’s integrity, her commitment to the environment and the public interest.

These attacks are unfair and unwarranted. Bowen has fought for the public interest, the public’s full involvement in our democracy, and the environment her entire career. She’s never given in to special interests of any kind, and has always stood up to big polluters like the oil industry.

That’s why Debra Bowen is the only candidate to receive the endorsement of both the Sierra Club and CLCV.

Bowen earned a 96% lifetime score from CLCV’s Environmental Scorecard on environmental issues while serving in the state legislature. Of all the candidates, Bowen brings the greatest depth of experience and achievement on a wider range of environmental issues. She fought for laws to oppose offshore drilling, fight climate change, promote alternative energy and to clean up the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach. With now-Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, she passed a landmark environmental justice bill to protect poor communities from becoming environmental dumping grounds.

We believe Debra Bowen’s experience and integrity will make her a highly respected and effective environmental champion and leader in Congress.

For more information, read our blog “CLCV endorses Debra Bowen for Congress”: http://www.ecovote.org/blog/cl…

You don’t have to be a detective to find Dirty Energy’s oily fingerprints all over our current national political debate on expanding oil drilling. But it helps that there are still investigative journalists who look into these things every now and again.

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the “Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act” by a 266 to 149 margin. Today, the Huffington Post reveals that the sponsors of the bill, which would expand oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and open the coastal waters of Virginia for exploration, received $8.8 million in contributions from Big Oil.

I’m sure you join me in believing fervently that the industry’s millions have absolutely zero influence on the motivations of the bill’s sponsors. Not.

According to the Huffington Post:

“The oil and gas industry is one of the most politically active interests groups in Washington. In the 2010 mid-term election cycle alone it spent $30 million in contributions to federal candidates… And those figures pale in comparison to the amount the industry spends on lobbying. In 2010, oil and gas companies spent just under $146 million employing the service of nearly 800 lobbyists.”

The “Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act” passed by Big Oil’s friends in the House is just the first of a series of largely GOP-supported, fast-tracked bills intended to loosen restrictions on offshore drilling. The three bills passed the House Committee on Natural Resources in April.

Closer to home for Californians, one of the next steps is to put to a House vote HR 1231, or “Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act,” which would require that each five-year offshore leasing plan include lease sales in the areas containing the greatest known oil and natural gas reserves. Every five years, the federal government would be required to lease at least 50% of available unleased acreage off the West Coast, Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico and much of the East Coast.

It’s been called the “Law of Eventually Drilling Everything” by Richard Charter, senior policy adviser for Defenders of Wildlife. A vote on the House floor is expected next week.

According to California Watch:

“Under existing law, the government decides which areas to lease. This new law would effectively double the current level of offshore drilling. And states, such as California, would have no say in the matter. ‘Earlier versions of bills like this generally allowed a state to veto projects,’ said Regan Nelson of the Natural Resources Defense Council. ‘Californians have consistently made it clear that they oppose new offshore drilling off their coast. This bill is so out of sync of what people want. They’re willing to put oil production over all other considerations.'”

Considerations like the clear environmental hazards of drilling, and risks to the public’s health and safety. It was only a year ago that the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, creating one of the largest environmental catastrophes ever.

It’s mind-boggling that in light of that very recent disaster, federal lawmakers including those that represent California are considering encouraging more drilling off the West Coast.

California Congressman Jeff Dunham claims that he supports the series of bills allowing more drilling in part because domestic energy production will “bring relief at the pump.” Rep. Denham is joined by fellow Californians Rep. Tom McClintock and Rep. Jim Costa in supporting the bills.

But a study conducted by the federal government’s Energy Information Administration showed that new drilling off the country’s coasts would only reduce gas prices by a few cents. (Oops! So much for that argument.)

Compare those pennies to the millions of dollars in contributions being doled out by the oil industry, and suddenly certain lawmakers’ urgent calls to allow more risky offshore drilling makes more than enough “cents.”

Speaking of something that makes no sense (or cents) for us taxpayers… Americans are still paying for billions of dollars in oil industry tax breaks, despite record oil industry profits and despite the fact that a recent poll found that 74 percent of voters support eliminating tax breaks to oil companies.

According to the national League of Conservation Voters, ExxonMobil recently announced nearly $11 billion in profits; BP announced $5.5 billion profits; and ConocoPhillips announced $3 billion in profits-all in the first three months of 2011. Obscene is the word that comes to mind.

Next week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to bring to the floor a bill, authored by Senator Max Baucus, that would end the billions of dollars in tax breaks for large oil producers–estimated to cost taxpayers $5 billion each year–and increase breaks for clean-energy producers.

As national League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski says of the handouts to Big Oil:

“And as ire over gas prices grows, so will frustration with Members of Congress who remain close to Big Oil. So while Speaker Boehner and others may be confused about where they stand on the issue, the choice is clear: end the Big Oil handouts now or see what the voters think in eighteen months.”

California voters made it clear what they thought of Dirty Energy’s election meddling last fall by overwhelmingly defeating an oil industry-funded attempt to repeal our landmark clean energy law. I expect we’ll once again make it clear in the 2012 elections what we think of elected officials covered in Big Oil’s fingerprints–in other words, those who put oil industry profits above the needs of the Californians they claim to represent.